Thursday, February 19, 2015

The parties compete to provide employee benefit plans; FIBI
and Beneco specialize in fringe benefit services to government contractors who
must comply with prevailing wage laws.Zane Smith, who worked for Beneco, copied significant portions of an
article published by FIBI and used it in an email to potential Beneco customers,
in an article for Construction Executive
Magazine, and another article sent to over 200 prospective clients.This was copyright infringement.But the core of the case was Lanham Act false
advertising; each of the challenged statements was made in commercial
advertising, but only some were proven false.

Of particular note, FIBI prevailed on its claim that Beneco
falsely claimed to have Department of Labor approval and endorsements from the American
Subcontractors Association and Associated Builders and Contractors. The court
found these to be literally false claims: Beneco’s plan wasn’t approved or
endorsed by any of these entities.Beneco
was endorsed by particular chapters of the two private organizations, but not
by the national groups, which both sent it C&D letters demanding that
Beneco stop using their logos in ads.This
result is notable because, as a traditional “false endorsement” §43(a)(1)(A) case,
FIBI wouldn’t have had standing to object on these associations’ behalf. But
that doesn’t mean that FIBI didn’t suffer injury of its own on a false advertising
§43(a)(1)(B) theory.(Compare this
recent case, misunderstanding this distinction.)

Other claims: FIBI failed to produce sufficient evidence
that Beneco’s claims that “we historically find that our ... plan is typically
50% less in cost than [FIBI’s] plan” were literally false.Though FIBI showed that several specific cost
comparisons sent to potential customers were literally false, and though Beneco
never identified the analysis or study backing up this claim, FIBI didn’t
provide evidence that Beneco never did any analysis justifying its claim or
otherwise more thoroughly compare the products.Moreover, the claim was clearly misleading, but FIBI didn’t provide
evidence that this particular statement confused customers.

By contrast, specific cost comparisons were false. For
example, one communication claimed that a specific customer would save “an
estimated $1,523” by staying with Beneco. This estimate came from an attached
spreadsheet containing several errors—misplacing a decimal point, increasing
FIBI’s cost by over $1,900; using an outdated service fee, inflating FIBI’s
cost by $1,541; and misstating a record keeping fee by $1/participant, inflating
the cost by $108. This was literally false. (But was it commercial advertising
or promotion?)Beneco also provided
inaccurate savings estimates to other customers, inflating FIBI’s costs by
thousands of dollars and undercalculating its own total costs.These estimates, “rife with errors,” were
literally false.

FIBI failed to show that Beneco’s claims about FIBI’s higher
fees and status as a target of legal investigation were literally false.Beneco told one potential customer that FIBI’s
“internal fees and expenses are 3 times higher” than Beneco’s, and that FIBI would
hide its fees.Later, it said that “FIBI
has been under investigation by the Federal DoL.” FIBI didn’t meet its burden of showing literal
falsity as to the internal fees—it just provided testimony from a VP that he’d
never seen any documentation supporting the claim.FIBI also impeached Beneco’s only evidence,
which compared the plans applied to a parcticular customer, but it didn’t show that
the “three times higher fees” claim was wrong in every case, or even in a
majority of cases.And again, FIBI
failed to show actual deception, treating the statement as merely misleading.

But the statement that FIBI hid its fees was literally
false.FIBI disclosed all its fees in
written agreements and marketing materials. So was Beneco’s claim that FIBI
lacked third-party trustee protection, forcing customers to bear certain risks
themselves.

By contrast, the “DoL investigation” claim wasn’t false or
misleading—though FIBI itself hadn’t been investigated, its affiliate, Plan
Benefit Services, had been successfully sued by the Department of Labor for
ERISA violations. Plan Benefit Services and FIBI shared common ownership,
common control, and functioned together in the same market. Thus, while the claim wasn’t entirely
accurate, it wasn’t “sufficiently misleading to trigger Lanham Act liability.”And FIBI didn’t prove likely consumer
deception.

Coordinate claims of unfair competition under Texas law also
succeeded based on the same facts, but a tortious interference claim didn’t,
for want of evidence of interference with particular business relationships.

FIBI sought only a permanent injunction.The Fifth Circuit doesn’t presume irreparable
harm from literal falsity. However, the court found irreparable harm here,
given testimony from a FIBI VP noting the small size of the benefit plan market
and stating that “when information is provided that’s incorrect in those small
circles, it gets around pretty quickly and can be damaging,” as well as
testimony that many customers are small, “family-run” businesses easily
influenced by false endorsements. “That many of the statements were contained
in emails sent directly to customers makes an injunction all the more
appropriate: as FIBI correctly notes, such ‘difficult-to-monitor channels’ are
the most likely source of future harm.”

Thus, Beneco was ordered to refrain from making the
statements found to be literally false, and to post a copy of the court’s order
on its website, including a link to the judgment on its corporate home page, to
persist for 30 days.The link had to be
no smaller than 12 point type “and readily apparent to the site’s visitors with
no other accompanying commentary or explanatory statement.”Aside from the posting requirement, the part
of the injunction with the most bite is probably the part that barred Beneco
from making “inaccurate and/or incomplete customer-specific comparisons between
the costs, fees, or expenses of FIBI and Beneco products.”

Somewhat surprisingly and formalistically, the court then
used the pre-eBay rule that copyright
infringement leads to a presumption of irreparable harm, and also enjoined
defendants “from infringing FIBI’s copyrights to publications, articles, literature
or marketing material.”(Also a pretty
broad scope.)

Creative Commons/disclaimer

Text on this blog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License. Pictures and works quoted may be subject to other parties' copyrights.
I speak for myself. On this blog, I do not and cannot speak for Georgetown Law, the Organization for Transformative Works and/or AO3.